Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DeBerard Properties, Ltd. v. Limgreen2 sentences2014The court held the modification agreement did not serve as an effective waiver of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b, citing DeBerard Properties Ltd. v. Lim (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 659 , which holds that a principal obligor cannot validly waive the protections of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b even by post-origination agreements. 2000We must therefore assess whether Harvey as principal obligor validly waived the protections of the antideficiency laws. 8 We conclude that, even assuming Harvey’s consent to the loan modification constituted a postorigination agreement waiving the protections of the antideficiency laws, DeBerard Properties, Ltd. v. Lim, supra, 20 Cal.4th 659 holds that a principal obligor cannot validly waive the protections of section 580b even by postorigination agreements. | 2 | 4 |
Spangler v. Memelgreen2 sentences1999We are of the view that if the transaction in question is a variation on the standard purchase money mortgage or deed of trust transaction, it should be examined so as to determine whether it subserves the purposes of section 580b . . . .” (Spangler, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 611 .) Thus, Spangler created a two-part inquiry: does the sale vary from a standard purchase money transaction, and if so, does. applying section 580b’s antideficiency protection comport with the Legislature’s intent? 1999We are of the view that if the transaction in question is a variation on the standard purchase money mortgage or deed of trust transaction, it should be examined so as to determine whether it subserves the purposes of section 580b...." ( Spangler, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 611 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 807 , 498 P.2d 1055 .) Thus, Spangler created a two-part inquiry: does the sale vary from a standard purchase money transaction, and if so, does applying section 580b's antideficiency protection comport with the Legislature's intent? | 1 | 5 |
Brown v. Jensengreen2 sentences1988Because of the proscription of section 580b, the seller may take no action on the promissory note in either case; “The one taking ... a [purchase money] trust deed knows the value of his security and assumes the risk that it may become inadequate.” (Brown v. Jensen (1953) 41 Cal.2d 193, 197 [ 259 P.2d 425 ].) Ziegler disagrees with Barnes’s assessment of the character of the $185,000 note. 1988Because of the proscription of section 580b, the seller may take no action on the promissory note in either case; “The one taking ... a [purchase money] trust deed knows the value of his security and assumes the risk that it may become inadequate.” (Brown v. Jensen (1953) 41 Cal.2d 193, 197 [ 259 P.2d 425 ].) Ziegler disagrees with Barnes’s assessment of the character of the $185,000 note. | 1 | 4 |
Ziegler v. Barnesgreen2 sentences1998The statute has been applied even though a transaction was structured through separate escrows (BMP Property Development v. Melvin (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 526, 531 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 715 ]) or by use of a straw man (Ziegler v. Barnes (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 224, 228-230 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]). 1998The statute has been applied even though a transaction was structured through separate escrows (BMP Property Development v. Melvin (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 526, 531 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 715 ]) or by use of a straw man (Ziegler v. Barnes (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 224, 228-230 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]). | 1 | 2 |
BMP Property Development v. Melvingreen2 sentences1998The statute has been applied even though a transaction was structured through separate escrows (BMP Property Development v. Melvin (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 526, 531 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 715 ]) or by use of a straw man (Ziegler v. Barnes (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 224, 228-230 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]). 1998The statute has been applied even though a transaction was structured through separate escrows (BMP Property Development v. Melvin (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 526, 531 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 715 ]) or by use of a straw man (Ziegler v. Barnes (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 224, 228-230 [ 246 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]). | 1 | 2 |
Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissnergreen2 sentences1998It is well established that “[t]he antideficiency provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b may not be contractually waived as a condition of the encumbrance of real property with a purchase money mortgage or deed of trust ... so long as it continues to be secured with the original real estate.” (Palm v. Schilling, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 65 .) Such an agreement, “if made, [is] contrary to public policy, void and ineffectual for any purpose.” (Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ].) Similarly, the courts have invalidated attempts to 1998It is well established that “[t]he antideficiency provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b may not be contractually waived as a condition of the encumbrance of real property with a purchase money mortgage or deed of trust ... so long as it continues to be secured with the original real estate.” (Palm v. Schilling, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 65 .) Such an agreement, “if made, [is] contrary to public policy, void and ineffectual for any purpose.” (Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ].) Similarly, the courts have invalidated attempts to | 1 | 2 |
Birman v. Loebgreen2 sentences2016(See Kurtz v. Calvo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 191, 194 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Birman v. Loeb (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 502, 506 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ].) The question here is whether the antideficiency protection of section 580b also applies after a short sale. 2016(See Kurtz v. Calvo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 191, 194 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Birman v. Loeb (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 502, 506 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ].) The question here is whether the antideficiency protection of section 580b also applies after a short sale. | 1 | 1 |
Kurtz v. Calvogreen2 sentences2016(See Kurtz v. Calvo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 191, 194 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Birman v. Loeb (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 502, 506 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ].) The question here is whether the antideficiency protection of section 580b also applies after a short sale. 2016(See Kurtz v. Calvo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 191, 194 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 ]; Birman v. Loeb (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 502, 506 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 294 ].) The question here is whether the antideficiency protection of section 580b also applies after a short sale. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1999(Jackson v. Taylor (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) *882 Finally, Sherwood-Trimble contends that respondents waived the antideficiency protection of section 580b by executing the “amended & restated secured purchase money promissory note,” relying on Russell v. Roberts (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 390 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] (Russell), which permitted such a waiver in exchange for new consideration following the original purchase money sale. 1999(Jackson v. Taylor (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) *882 Finally, Sherwood-Trimble contends that respondents waived the antideficiency protection of section 580b by executing the “amended & restated secured purchase money promissory note,” relying on Russell v. Roberts (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 390 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] (Russell), which permitted such a waiver in exchange for new consideration following the original purchase money sale. | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1986(Long v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 499, 500 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 337 ].) Variations of the standard transaction may be exempt from the application of the antideficiency provisions of section 580b. 1986(Long v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 499, 500 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 337 ].) Variations of the standard transaction may be exempt from the application of the antideficiency provisions of section 580b. | 1 | 1 |
Roseleaf Corp. v. Chierighinogreen2 sentences1985The Spangler court determined that the antideficiency proscription of section 580b, established in Brown v. Jensen, supra, 41 Cal.2d at page 198 , remains in full effect but “applies automatically only to the standard purchase money situation.” If the purchase money security transaction is a variation of the standard, then application of section 580b turns upon whether such application would serve the recognized purposes of that statute. ( Spangler, supra, 7 Cal.3d 603 at p. 611 ) 1 The Spangler court attributed two purposes to section 580b, which the court had previously described in Roseleaf 1985The Spangler court determined that the antideficiency proscription of section 580b, established in Brown v. Jensen, supra, 41 Cal.2d at page 198 , remains in full effect but “applies automatically only to the standard purchase money situation.” If the purchase money security transaction is a variation of the standard, then application of section 580b turns upon whether such application would serve the recognized purposes of that statute. ( Spangler, supra, 7 Cal.3d 603 at p. 611 ) 1 The Spangler court attributed two purposes to section 580b, which the court had previously described in Roseleaf | 1 | 1 |
Duarte v. Lake Gregory Land and Water Co.green2 sentences1975(Duarte v. Lake Gregory Land and Water Co. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 101, 105 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 893 ].) Plaintiff on the other hand contends that an action for waste may be maintained independently of the antideficiency provisions of sections 580b and 580d of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1975(Duarte v. Lake Gregory Land and Water Co. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 101, 105 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 893 ].) Plaintiff on the other hand contends that an action for waste may be maintained independently of the antideficiency provisions of sections 580b and 580d of the Code of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
green
2 sentences2023The cases he cites, such as Coker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 667 , 671 28 (deciding the antideficiency protection of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b applies to short sales as well as foreclosure sales), are inapplicable. 2016(Coker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 681 .) Invalidating the deed of trust would result in respondent’s loss of its security interest in the home, but it would not “extinguish the underlying debt,” which, if reduced to judgment, could give rise to a judgment lien against the community property. | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Palm v. Schilling
green
2 sentences1998It is well established that "[t]he antideficiency provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b may not be contractually waived as a condition of the encumbrance of real property with a purchase money mortgage or deed of trust ... so long as it continues to be secured with the original real estate." ( Palm v. Schilling, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 65 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 600 .) Such an agreement, "if made, [is] contrary to public policy, void and ineffectual for any purpose." ( Vialinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 , 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 .) Similarly, the courts have in 1998It is well established that “[t]he antideficiency provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b may not be contractually waived as a condition of the encumbrance of real property with a purchase money mortgage or deed of trust ... so long as it continues to be secured with the original real estate.” (Palm v. Schilling, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 65 .) Such an agreement, “if made, [is] contrary to public policy, void and ineffectual for any purpose.” (Valinda Builders, Inc. v. Bissner (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 106, 112 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 735 ].) Similarly, the courts have invalidated attempts to | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Scalese v. Wong
green
1 sentence2013Only after the amicus brief attributed this argument to Chase Bank did Chase Bank explain its position in reply. 14 law in California and warrants no extended discussion." (Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, 999 .) Relying on Scalese v. Wong (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 863 (Scalese), Chase Bank asserts Coker was required to invoke the security first rule of section 726 and had to insist that Chase Bank foreclose on her home before the protections of section 580b applied. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab
green
1 sentence2013Only after the amicus brief attributed this argument to Chase Bank did Chase Bank explain its position in reply. 14 law in California and warrants no extended discussion." (Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, 999 .) Relying on Scalese v. Wong (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 863 (Scalese), Chase Bank asserts Coker was required to invoke the security first rule of section 726 and had to insist that Chase Bank foreclose on her home before the protections of section 580b applied. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cornelison v. Kornbluth
green
2 sentences2012(Id. at p. 595 & fn. 1.) On review, the defendant argued that because the “plaintiff purchased the property for a full credit bid an action for waste is precluded both by reason of the antideficiency legislation [citations] and by reason of the extinguishment of the security interest through a full credit bid at the trustee’s sale.” (Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 597 .) The plaintiff contended “that an action for waste may be maintained independently of the antideficiency provisions of sections 580b and 580d of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Ibid.) The Supreme Court began by 2012(Id. at p. 595 & fn. 1.) On review, the defendant argued that because the “plaintiff purchased the property for a full credit bid an action for waste is precluded both by reason of the antideficiency legislation [citations] and by reason of the extinguishment of the security interest through a full credit bid at the trustee’s sale.” (Cornelison v. Kornbluth, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 597 .) The plaintiff contended “that an action for waste may be maintained independently of the antideficiency provisions of sections 580b and 580d of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Ibid.) The Supreme Court began by | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.
green
1 sentence1999Defendants again cite Applied Equipment, which states that conspiracy is not an independent tort, but rather a theory which “allows tort recovery only against a party who already owes the duty and is not immune from liability based on applicable substantive tort law principles.” (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th 503, 514 .) Recognizing that their argument depends upon application of the alter ego doctrine, defendants argue that the doctrine is available as an affirmative defense. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Conley v. Matthes
green
2 sentences1999Concluding that the evidence was not in conflict and that Conley v. Matthes (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1453 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] was directly on point, the court determined the antideficiency rule of section 580b precluded an action on the note and entered judgment in favor of Defendants in January 1998. 1999Concluding that the evidence was not in conflict and that Conley v. Matthes (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1453 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] was directly on point, the court determined the antideficiency rule of section 580b precluded an action on the note and entered judgment in favor of Defendants in January 1998. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Russell v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1999(Jackson v. Taylor (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) *882 Finally, Sherwood-Trimble contends that respondents waived the antideficiency protection of section 580b by executing the “amended & restated secured purchase money promissory note,” relying on Russell v. Roberts (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 390 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] (Russell), which permitted such a waiver in exchange for new consideration following the original purchase money sale. 1999(Jackson v. Taylor (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 891 ].) *882 Finally, Sherwood-Trimble contends that respondents waived the antideficiency protection of section 580b by executing the “amended & restated secured purchase money promissory note,” relying on Russell v. Roberts (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 390 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] (Russell), which permitted such a waiver in exchange for new consideration following the original purchase money sale. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Roffinella v. Sherinian
green
2 sentences1988Our decision is consistent with Roffinella v. Sherinian (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 230 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 502 ] which is more fully explained in 1 Miller &. 1988Our decision is consistent with Roffinella v. Sherinian (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 230 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 502 ] which is more fully explained in 1 Miller &. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Lucky Investments, Inc. v. Adams
green
2 sentences1984“The sole issue on appeal [was] whether a purchase money trust deed is taken outside the antideficiency protection of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b when the trust deed contains an unexercised agreement to subordinate the security to a construction loan.” (Id., at p. 512, fn. omitted.) 5 Lucky Investments, Inc. v. Adams (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 462 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 57 ], cited by Mack and Jordan is inapposite. 1984“The sole issue on appeal [was] whether a purchase money trust deed is taken outside the antideficiency protection of Code of Civil Procedure section 580b when the trust deed contains an unexercised agreement to subordinate the security to a construction loan.” (Id., at p. 512, fn. omitted.) 5 Lucky Investments, Inc. v. Adams (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 462 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 57 ], cited by Mack and Jordan is inapposite. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.